You are here: / / IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH...
, , ,

IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing its prior decision after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether it was notified of the tax foreclosure proceeding by defendant county. The Court of Appeals had ruled that, although the county proved the notice was mailed the letters were not returned, plaintiffs could prove the notice was not received by other evidence:

… “[A]lthough the statute contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is,by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance, an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) by other relevant proof, despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by section 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” … . …

Although we are aware that, on its own, failure to receive notice is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … , such failure, when combined with other evidence, can support a reasonable inference that defendants failed to comply with the mailing requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). … [I]f the notices were not received, there are only two real possibilities — either the procedure used by defendant County … failed to comply with RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) inasmuch as the wrong address was affixed, or the United States Postal Service made an error. When viewed in conjunction with the further facts that the certified mail tracking history indicated an unknown address and that the return receipt was unstamped, it is reasonable to infer, together with the additional evidence of nonreceipt, that the notices were not correctly mailed and that the County failed to comply with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02148, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: In this tax foreclosure proceeding, the county submitted prima facie proof it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1125 by submitting proof the letters were mailed and not returned. However, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that the notice was not received, which raised a question of fact about whether the county in fact complied with RPAPL 1125.

 

You might also like
THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DETERMINATION DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA WHERE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS TO BE BUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REZONING ORDINANCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
AGREEMENT ALLOWING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ “HOME RULE” RIGHTS.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF, A YOUTH HOCKEY PLAYER INJURED BY A TIPPING BENCH IN THE LOCKER ROOM, WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COACH OR HIS FATHER IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​
CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE AND WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD MADE SEVERAL DECISIONS BUT REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE FOR ADDITIONAL RULINGS; THE ORDER APPEALED FROM THEREFORE WAS NONFINAL; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.
DESPITE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT THAT SHE RETURN TO NEW YORK WITH THE CHILDREN, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BROKER-DEALER AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED; HER TESTIMONY ABOUT... THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY DISMISSED A JUROR WHEN SHE DIDN’T APPEAR WITHOUT...